Protecting Thai Buddhism from twisted teachings

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Protecting Thai Buddhism from twisted teachings
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Temples are growing rich by preaching doctrine that exploits worshippers' superstitions and leaves them poorer in body and spirit

Thailand is routinely described as a Buddhist country, reflecting the fact that a majority of the population is registered as followers of the faith. National Statistical Office records show 94.6 per cent of Thais are registered as Buddhists.

However, in reality, our Buddhist identity often goes little further than what's written on our ID cards and house-registration documents. Many of us stick to animistic beliefs and superstitions in charting our way through life, ignoring Lord Buddha's teaching about the "middle way", a path of moderation between extremes.

The ignorance is exacerbated at many Buddhist temples, where monks take advantage of lay people's superstitious nature by selling amulets and services. Exorcisms, protective spells and trinkets are readily available at a price, and have become a lucrative trade for some monks.

There are temples that preach twisted interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, often claiming to be offering "a special brand" of Buddhism. Worshippers are told that the more money they donate to the temple, the more "merit" they will receive, guaranteeing them a better existence in the next life.

For wealthier worshippers who can afford to make large donations to temples, this teaching is easy to follow. But for poorer members of the congregation, its effect can be pernicious. Some make massive donations in the hope of securing a place in Heaven. As a result, their reward in this life can be bankruptcy, divorce and the collapse of family life.

Making merit in this way runs counter to the spirit of the "middle path" teaching. The monks who encourage such a practice are distorting the foundational teachings of Buddhism to enrich themselves or their temples.

The depth of the problem has been highlighted by cases in which abbots were found to have millions of baht deposited in their personal bank accounts. The monastic code

prohibits Buddhist monks from owning anything more than basic necessities.

The use of temple grounds for commercial events is another way in which religion is being exploited for private gain.

Recently a conflict broke out over who held the rights to organise a popular - and lucrative - annual temple fair. The well-known Buddhist scholar and monk W Vajiramedhi has warned that temples twisting the teachings for commercial gain are big threat to Buddhism in Thailand. They have "contaminated" the Buddha's original teachings with their own beliefs, he said, and some had even altered the canonical teachings of the Tripitaka to preach a skewed message.

Thai Buddhists must consider whether to follow the "commercialised" teachings on offer or the original guidance on the "middle way" imparted by the Buddha himself. Do we want to keep the faith alive in our hearts in this life, by unselfishly and humbly giving alms to monks and donating to temples? Or do we want to hand over riches in the hope of getting to a higher level in Heaven, as advertised?

The authorities involved - the Supreme Sangha Council and the Department of Religious Affairs - also have a duty to defend the faith against those who would disseminate false teachings. Scrutinising those temples might upset their powerful and wealthy worshippers, but it would be the right thing to do.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Protecting-Thai-Buddhism-from-twisted-teachings-30253401.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-05

[daveAustin]

"Thailand is routinely described as a Buddhist country"

... and yet nowhere else have I seen such a drive to obtain material things, to show off and to utterly lord over money.

[upena]

There are Buddhists and there are Thai Buddhists. Don't confuse the two.

[razer]

A reflection of the Thai culture

[gopis108]

The most twisted part of Lord Buddhas teachings is the eating of flesh by MONKs-IN THE TEMPLE.Ahimsa does not include flesh eating even if some other tool killed the beast.Flesh is food for the violent animals and has no place in any spiritual order what to speak of Buddhism-until they get that point right the temples will see the decline in the morality and the character of the monks,there is no question of that,what to speak of the youth who are becoming more violent as they eat more and more flesh following the example of the THai Buddhist clergy.

[Thaddeus]

The most twisted part of Lord Buddhas teachings is the eating of flesh by MONKs-IN THE TEMPLE.Ahimsa does not include flesh eating even if some other tool killed the beast.Flesh is food for the violent animals and has no place in any spiritual order what to speak of Buddhism-until they get that point right the temples will see the decline in the morality and the character of the monks,there is no question of that,what to speak of the youth who are becoming more violent as they eat more and more flesh following the example of the THai Buddhist clergy.

I've never seen a bacon sandwich cause violence, I think other factors are more to blame.

Alcohol, drugs, blatant greed, lack of good education and discipline, figure much higher on my list.

[bangon04]

"The authorities involved - the Supreme Sangha Council and the Department of Religious Affairs - also have a duty to defend the faith against those who would disseminate false teachings. Scrutinising those temples might upset their powerful and wealthy worshippers, but it would be the right thing to do."

and in other news, the Thai Chief of Police has a duty to completely eradicate corruption in the entire country's police force, and the Minister for Education has a duty to completely reform the Thai education system to make it relevant and suitable for the modern world, and .....

do you think Thais know this?

[peridot]

The most twisted part of Lord Buddhas teachings is the eating of flesh by MONKs-IN THE TEMPLE.Ahimsa does not include flesh eating even if some other tool killed the beast.Flesh is food for the violent animals and has no place in any spiritual order what to speak of Buddhism-until they get that point right the temples will see the decline in the morality and the character of the monks,there is no question of that,what to speak of the youth who are becoming more violent as they eat more and more flesh following the example of the THai Buddhist clergy.

the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324

[visionchaser45]

Protecting Thai Buddhism from twisted teachings...

I think that ship sailed a long, long time ago.

[Suffinator]

Just another form of extortion which is the only good thing Thais are apt at.

Religion ... a poor excuse to tell everyone you are righteous.

[khaowong1]

The most twisted part of Lord Buddhas teachings is the eating of flesh by MONKs-IN THE TEMPLE.Ahimsa does not include flesh eating even if some other tool killed the beast.Flesh is food for the violent animals and has no place in any spiritual order what to speak of Buddhism-until they get that point right the temples will see the decline in the morality and the character of the monks,there is no question of that,what to speak of the youth who are becoming more violent as they eat more and more flesh following the example of the THai Buddhist clergy.

the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324

Thank you peridot.. you are quite correct. The Buddha never outlawed the eating of meat. Only the above rules.

[DogNo1]

"...in this life." "...a higher level in heaven."

What kind of Buddhism is this? I know of the Vietnamese superstition that wrongdoing will lead to rebirth as a lower being and the more wrong that one does causes him/her to be reborn as a more wretched animal but I have never heard of a belief in heaven being linked to Buddhism. Has anyone read Ajahn Cha? He clearly stated that there is no such thing as a subsequent life - no rebirth and no heaven. In "The History of Buddhism in Vietnam" it is noted that the early Indian introducers of Buddhism to Vietnam (no, not the Chinese) despaired of the ways in which the Vietnamese distorted Buddhism to suit their locals gods and superstitions.

[rockyysdt]

Whilst visiting a Buddhist temple in Chiang Mai I noticed a slot machine.

By placing coins in the slot and pressing the large button it will then randomly determine and display your luck.

Perhaps other readers can translate the writing on the machine.

[VincentRJ]

The most twisted part of Lord Buddhas teachings is the eating of flesh by MONKs-IN THE TEMPLE.Ahimsa does not include flesh eating even if some other tool killed the beast.Flesh is food for the violent animals and has no place in any spiritual order what to speak of Buddhism-until they get that point right the temples will see the decline in the morality and the character of the monks,there is no question of that,what to speak of the youth who are becoming more violent as they eat more and more flesh following the example of the THai Buddhist clergy.

the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324

That sounds a bit confusing to me. Does this quote perhaps need further interpretation? For example, if a monk during his early-morning rounds with an alms bowl, were offered a piece of fish, should he enquire if the fish has been specifically caught for him, and/or for monks in general?

In the modern world, fish are usually caught and killed for sale in the market, without any specific group of people in mind, except people with money to buy the fish, which would tend to exclude monks.

Therefore, if the monk, on asking the question, were informed by the layperson offering the fish, that the fish had been bought for the family and was leftover, would it then be okay for the monk to accept and eat the fish?

However, if the layperson offering the fish were to answer that he/she had bought the fish specifically to gain merit by offering it to a monk, then the monk should not eat the fish. Right?

On the other hand, whether or not the fish was bought specifically for donation to a monk, logically should be irrelevant since the quote uses the phrase, 'killed on purpose for a monk'. It is surely very unlikely that any fisherman would set sail with the sole motivation to catch fish only for monks.

[khaowong1]

The most twisted part of Lord Buddhas teachings is the eating of flesh by MONKs-IN THE TEMPLE.Ahimsa does not include flesh eating even if some other tool killed the beast.Flesh is food for the violent animals and has no place in any spiritual order what to speak of Buddhism-until they get that point right the temples will see the decline in the morality and the character of the monks,there is no question of that,what to speak of the youth who are becoming more violent as they eat more and more flesh following the example of the THai Buddhist clergy.

the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324

That sounds a bit confusing to me. Does this quote perhaps need further interpretation? For example, if a monk during his early-morning rounds with an alms bowl, were offered a piece of fish, should he enquire if the fish has been specifically caught for him, and/or for monks in general?

In the modern world, fish are usually caught and killed for sale in the market, without any specific group of people in mind, except people with money to buy the fish, which would tend to exclude monks.

Therefore, if the monk, on asking the question, were informed by the layperson offering the fish, that the fish had been bought for the family and was leftover, would it then be okay for the monk to accept and eat the fish?

However, if the layperson offering the fish were to answer that he/she had bought the fish specifically to gain merit by offering it to a monk, then the monk should not eat the fish. Right?

On the other hand, whether or not the fish was bought specifically for donation to a monk, logically should be irrelevant since the quote uses the phrase, 'killed on purpose for a monk'. It is surely very unlikely that any fisherman would set sail with the sole motivation to catch fish only for monks.

You have it all right there. 'killed on purpose for a monk'. Monks don't cook for themselves. Therefore is someone on alms round gave a monk a fish, you can pretty much bet it's cooked. Same with chicken, pork, beef, etc. And believe me, Thai people know the rules. They aren't going out in the yard and kill a chicken, cook it, then give it to a monk. Maybe half the chicken, but most definitely not the whole chicken. So it can be said they didn't kill the chicken on purpose for a monk.. Same with a fish.. someone didn't go to the canal or pond, catch one fish just for the monks.

[khaowong1]

Whilst visiting a Buddhist temple in Chiang Mai I noticed a slot machine.

By placing coins in the slot and pressing the large button it will then randomly determine and display your luck.

Perhaps other readers can translate the writing on the machine.

It's not a fortune machine, it's a blessing machine. by pressing the large button, you get random blessings.

[Brucenkhamen]

That sounds a bit confusing to me. Does this quote perhaps need further interpretation? For example, if a monk during his early-morning rounds with an alms bowl, were offered a piece of fish, should he enquire if the fish has been specifically caught for him, and/or for monks in general?

You're overthinking it. I think it's mostly about situations where someone wants to "honour" the monks by slaughtering a pig to celebrate or something like that. It's probably something someone would do when visited by dignitaries, or long lost relatives. Monks are supposed to eat what lay people choose to share with them, not something special.

[VincentRJ]

That sounds a bit confusing to me. Does this quote perhaps need further interpretation? For example, if a monk during his early-morning rounds with an alms bowl, were offered a piece of fish, should he enquire if the fish has been specifically caught for him, and/or for monks in general?

You're overthinking it. I think it's mostly about situations where someone wants to "honour" the monks by slaughtering a pig to celebrate or something like that. It's probably something someone would do when visited by dignitaries, or long lost relatives. Monks are supposed to eat what lay people choose to share with them, not something special.

Overthinking? What's that? Do you mean one should only think in moderation, according to the general Buddhist principle of 'everything in moderation'?

In relation to the supreme Buddhist goal of a complete cessation of all thought, any thinking at all could be considered as overthinking.

I'm simply trying to be clear about the Buddhist attitude towards eating meat. According to the quote I've addressed in my post above, it seems to be perfectly okay, except on the very rare occasions that someone has slaughtered an animal with the intention of offering it to a monk. I didn't know that. I imagine there are some Buddhists who would disagree.

[rockyysdt]

it seems to be perfectly okay, except on the very rare occasions that someone has slaughtered an animal with the intention of offering it to a monk. I didn't know that. I imagine there are some Buddhists who would disagree.

The other proviso being, the Monk didn't order/choose the meat, but rather it was given to him during alms.

As one must eat what is offered, I wonder what the deal is if he received a number of meals, both vegetarian & meat during alms.

Would the Monk be found wanting if he completely ate the meat dish and left the vegetarian ones uneaten?

[Brucenkhamen]

Overthinking? What's that? Do you mean one should only think in moderation, according to the general Buddhist principle of 'everything in moderation'?

By that I mean making something pretty simple into something complicated through unnecessary analysis.

In relation to the supreme Buddhist goal of a complete cessation of all thought,

Is of course a silly statement.

I didn't know that. I imagine there are some Buddhists who would disagree.

Yes, A lot of Buddhist laypeople only offer vegetarian food to monks, it's not so common among thais but I find much more so among westerners and sri lankans for example.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

Overthinking? What's that? Do you mean one should only think in moderation, according to the general Buddhist principle of 'everything in moderation'?

By that I mean making something pretty simple into something complicated through unnecessary analysis.

Unnecessary analysis? I didn't even check the internet for opposing views on the Buddhist attitude to eating meat. I still haven't done so. What I wrote was simply my own interpretation of the quote, formed within minutes of reading it.

[dragonfly94]

the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324

Proof to me that the so called Buddha was not actually enlightened at all

[sfokevin]

There is a lot of Buddhism in this country but not a whole lot of Dharma...

[rockyysdt]

the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324

Proof to me that the so called Buddha was not actually enlightened at all

That's an interesting conclusion.

What was behind your decision?

[jacky54]

the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324

would he not have had compassion for animals?

Edited February 9, 2015 by jacky54

[VincentRJ]

the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you."

Book of the Discipline, Vol. 4, p. 324

would he not have had compassion for animals?

I guess the implication here is, the fish, cow, goat, sheep, pig. or bird, does not care one whit whether it lost its life to be eaten by a monk, or a layperson.

If the animal slaughtered did have an awareness similar to humans, it would probably think, "Please let me be slaughtered in order to be eaten by a monk, pure in spirit, rather than by an ignorant layperson".

Personally, I have no problem with eating meat, although I prefer fish, chicken and eggs to steak, for health and environmental reasons. What does concern me is the way the animals are treated whilst they're alive, and the sometimes cruel way they are slaughtered. I always choose free-range eggs, even though they are more expensive than cage eggs.

[jacky54]

surely the implication is the Buddha lacked compassion for all sentient beings? Monk 'alive'; after 200 years, and he's not been scoffing down dead animals!

Mummified Buddhist monk 'still alive after 200 years and is nearly a Buddha'

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mummified-buddhist-monk-still-alive-200-years-nearly-110413532.html#HPAXt3i

Edited February 9, 2015 by jacky54

[khaowong1]

it seems to be perfectly okay, except on the very rare occasions that someone has slaughtered an animal with the intention of offering it to a monk. I didn't know that. I imagine there are some Buddhists who would disagree.

The other proviso being, the Monk didn't order/choose the meat, but rather it was given to him during alms.

As one must eat what is offered, I wonder what the deal is if he received a number of meals, both vegetarian & meat during alms.

Would the Monk be found wanting if he completely ate the meat dish and left the vegetarian ones uneaten?

If you have been to a temple in the mornings after a alms round, you will see several things. All the rice collected is put into a large metal container, all the separate food is put into bowls. All the monks either sit in a line or at tables, depending on the temple. Chants are made, blessing the people who offered the food. Then each monk, starting with the head monk, working down the line by seniority, fill their bowls with rice and whatever each monk prefers to eat, some only eat vegetarian, some a mixture of both. I've seen some only eat rice and fruit. Some temples are strictly vegetarian, some are not. The separation of foods are done mostly by the civilian laity at the temple. After the monks eat, the civilians eat. Everyone is welcome. Poor people living near a temple know they can always get something to eat at a temple. Even at the end of the day, if there is food left from the morning alms rounds, civilians can go to a temple and get something to eat, even though the monks do not eat. When it's determined that everyone is fed, the leftovers are fed to the dogs and cats. Normally this happens about 7 pm or so. So unless a temple makes a decision about being only vegetarian, it's up to the individual monks. Normally the abbot makes this decision whether a temple is vegetarian, and the civilian laity abides by that decision.

[jacky54]

Never seen a vegetarian Wat, can you name a few?

[khaowong1]

Never seen a vegetarian Wat, can you name a few?

I believe all Ajahn Chah related temples are vegetarian. The most famous of course is Wat Pah Nana Chat up near Udon Thani.. There is one I stayed at near Pak Chong, don't remember the name. All the civilian laity know they are vegetarian and only offer that type of food on alms rounds. veggies and fruits. There is also a American monk, who was a student of Ajahn Chah, who lives near Pak Chong, in a one man temple, been a monk going on 50 years, the last time I saw him, he was eating only rice and fruit. Ajahn Sumano. Look him up on google.